Wichita State University Libraries
SOAR: Shocker Open Access Repository
Robert C. Manske
Physical Therapy
Interlimb Differences in Lower Extremity Bone Mineral Density
Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
Michael P. Reiman
Michael E. Rogers
Robert C. Manske
Authors’ affiliation: Wichita State University
_____________________________________________________________
Recommended citation
Reiman, Michael P., Rogers, Michael E. and Robert C. Manske. 2006. Interlimb differences in lower extremity bone mineral density following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, Vol. 36, No.11, pp.837‐44. DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2006.2278 This paper is posted in Shocker Open Access Repository
http://soar.wichita.edu/dspace/handle/10057/3687
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy
Official Publication of the Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy Sections of the American Physical Therapy Association
Interlimb Differences in Lower Extremity
Bone Mineral Density Following Anterior
Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
Michael P. Reiman, PT, MEd, ATC, CSCS 1,2
Michael E. Rogers, PhD, CSCS, FACSM 3
Robert C. Manske, PT, DPT, MEd, SCS, ATC, CSCS 1,2
A
lterations in normal knee function following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury and surgery have been extensively researched. An area that has not been well researched
is the extent to which bone mineral density (BMD) changes
following ACL reconstruction surgery.1,9,14,20,27,30 Previous
studies have looked specifically at the knee1,14,20,27,30 and, to a lesser
extent, the spine14,20 and the calcaneus.9,16 To date, relatively few studies
have looked specifically at BMD changes of the hip in these patients,14,15,27 and none have looked at the hip as the specific location of
emphasis.
1
Assistant Professor, Wichita State University Department of Physical Therapy, Wichita, KS.
Staff Physical Therapist, Via Christi Sports and Orthopedic Physical Therapy, Wichita, KS.
3
Associate Professor, Wichita State University Department of Kinesiology and Sport Studies, Wichita, KS.
The protocol of this study was approved by Wichita State University Institutional Review Board, and Via
Christi Regional Medical Center Institutional Review Board.
Address correspondence to Michael P. Reiman, Department of Physical Therapy, Wichita State University,
1845 N Fairmount, Wichita, KS 67260-0043. E-mail: michael.reiman@wichita.edu
2
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy
837
REPORT
Key Words: ACL, anterior cruciate ligament, dual energy X-ray
absorptiometry, hip
Schmitz27 examined multiple
sites, including the hip and knee,
comparing BMD loss after ACL
injury and reconstruction. Two
groups with ACL injuries were examined: one group that had not
undergone surgical reconstruction
and the other that had surgical
reconstruction. Both the surgicalreconstruction and conservatively
treated groups demonstrated significant losses in BMD at all locations throughout the hip and
knee, except the anterior-posterior
and lateral projections of the
proximal tibia at a mean of 2.5
years postinjury. Other studies
have noted considerable and statistically significant loss of bone mass
to the affected lower extremity in
comparison to conservative treatment for ACL tears at the distal
femur, patella, and proximal
tibia, 20 as well as at the
calcaneus.9,15 Anderson and Nilsson1 used gamma absorptiometry
to measure bone mineral content
(BMC) in individuals with clinical
signs of ligamentous injuries to the
knee joint without any signs of
fracture. The authors found lower
BMC (P⬍.01) with both surgical
reconstruction and conservative
treatment. Again, these measures
were localized to the knee.
Kannus et al14 and Karlsson et
15
al are the only authors that have
assessed hip BMC and BMD. Kan-
RESEARCH
Study Design: Prospective descriptive study.
Objective: To determine the extent of bone mineral density (BMD) interlimb differences at several
hip locations in the involved versus noninvolved lower extremity following anterior cruciate
ligament (ACL) surgery.
Background: Disuse following ACL reconstruction can be extensive. This disuse not only affects
the soft tissue, but may also affect the skeletal structure. The extent of this disuse specific to the
proximal femur has not been previously determined.
Methods and Measures: BMD was assessed in 15 subjects, 17 to 51 years old, who were between
6 and 32 months post-ACL reconstruction surgery. Bone mineral content (BMC) and BMD of the
femoral neck, trochanteric region, intertrochanteric region, and entire hip were measured as a
primary emphasis of this study. BMD and BMC of the entire lower extremities were also measured
bilaterally.
Results: BMD was significantly less in the involved lower extremity compared to noninvolved
lower extremity at several hip sites: 6.6% less (P⬍.001) for the trochanteric region, 4.0% less
(P⬍.001) for the entire hip, and 3.4% less (P = .004) for the intertrochanteric region. No
significant differences were noted comparing the entire lower extremities for either BMD (0.9%,
P = .48) or BMC (3.7%, P = .09).
Conclusion: BMD differences at the hip are significant in patient’s postoperative ACL reconstruction, especially in the trochanteric region. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2006;36(11):837-844.
doi:10.2519/jospt.2006.2278
TABLE 1. Characteristics of all participants.
Participant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Mean*
SD*
Range*
Age (y)
Height (cm)
Mass (kg)
Sex
33
26
17
17
34
31
38
22
42
17
24
18
38
22
51
27.1
8.8
17-42
170.2
188.0
170.2
160.0
177.8
188.0
177.8
162.6
180.3
177.8
162.6
177.8
175.3
179.1
165.1
174.8
8.6
160-188
85.9
104.5
74.1
67.3
96.8
116.8
97.7
58.6
76.8
77.3
81.4
80.9
91.4
73.6
75.0
84.3
15.5
58.6-116.8
M
M
F
F
M
M
M
F
F
F
F
M
M
M
F
Graft Type
Time Since
(Allograft
Surgery (mo) Versus BPTB)
10
21
11
8
8
26
13
8
8
17
14
32
27
10
22
15.2
8.1
8-32
Allograft
BPTB
BPTB
BPTB
Allograft
BPTB
Allograft
Allograft
BPTB
Allograft
Allograft
BPTB
Allograft
Allograft
Allograft
Lower
Extremity
Dominance
Surgery
Lower
Extremity
Right
Right
Right
Right
Right
Right
Right
Right
Right
Right
Right
Right
Left
Right
Right
Right
Left
Left
Left
Right
Left
Left
Right
Left
Right
Right
Right
Left
Left
Left
Abbreviation: BPTB, bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft.
*Calculated for 14 subjects included in the study (excluding subject 15).
nus et al14 assessed BMD at several sites from the
lumbar spine to the calcaneus. Participants sustaining
a severe injury demonstrated an average deficit of 6%
in the distal aspect of the tibia of the involved lower
extremity. The only common site in both studies was
the femoral neck. Neither study demonstrated significant interlimb differences. Karlsson et al15did find a
significant interlimb difference at the trochanters
only. However, no studies have specifically looked at
various locations within the hip.
Declines in bone mineral status have been shown
to have long-lasting effects. A unique case study by
Sievanen et al30 determined an immediate significant
decrease (20%) and an approximate 10% deficit in
specific anatomical location densities when measured
using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA)
1-year postinjury. The DEXA method is a common
method of in vivo bone assessment for a variety of
reasons, including accuracy,6,31 precision,6,31 stability,31 cost,31 subject radiation dose and compliance,6,31 freedom to select skeletal sites,6,31 as well as
speed and ease of scanning for the assessment of
bone mineral status.6,31
The long-term adaptations to injury should be of
concern as the population of subjects with post-ACL
reconstruction ages. It is important to understand the
future implications of BMD deficit in these subjects.
Because osteoporosis is prevalent in areas of high
trabecular bone content,7,12 and the fact that the hip
is a common fracture site in older individuals with
osteoporosis,7,12 attention should be given to investigating BMD of specific hip locations. DEXA scanning
of the femoral neck is one of the best BMD methods
to screen for osteoporosis.18 The fact that relatively
838
few studies have looked at these specific hip locations14,15,27 and the lack of agreement among these
studies accentuates the need for further investigation.
Through critical review, no consistent conclusions
can be made regarding BMD differences of the hip
for the involved and noninvolved lower extremity
following ACL reconstruction due to the lack of
previous studies. Bone mineral status has not been
conclusively determined in the patient post-ACL reconstruction. Therefore, the purpose of this study was
to determine the interlimb differences of bone mineral properties, specifically in the hip region, following reconstructive surgery.
METHODS
Participants
Participants selected for this study included 15
subjects that had undergone ACL reconstruction
within a timeframe of 6 to 32 months prior to the
study (Table 1). These participants were recruited
from a list of patients having undergone ACL reconstruction and expressed availability to participate in
the study. Each of the participants experienced similar surgical procedures by 1 of 3 local surgeons.
Participants were excluded if they reported any prior
history of bone disease or previous trauma to either
hip, as per a signed medical history form. Means,
standard deviations, and ranges of subjects’ age, mass,
and height, as well as participant’s sex, involved
extremity, lower extremity dominance, time frame
from surgery, and graft source are given in Table 1.
Table 2 provides descriptive statistics of the individual
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther • Volume 36 • Number 11 • November 2006
TABLE 2. Descriptive statistics (mean ± SD, range) of variables analyzed.
BMD lower extremity
Trochanter BMD
Hip BMD
Femoral neck BMD
Hip intertrochanteric BMD
BMC lower extremity
Hip trochanter BMC
Hip BMC
Femoral neck BMC
Hip intertrochanteric BMC
Involved Lower Extremity
Noninvolved Lower Extremity
1.42 ± .21 (1.18-1.97)
0.80 ± .13 (.61-1.08)
1.04 ± .14 (.87-1.37)
1.03 ± .14 (.84-1.35)
1.19 ± .15 (1.02-1.57)
552.19 ± 115.06 (368.60-776.20)
9.88 ± 2.31 (6.03-14.89)
40.24 ± 9.22 (24.69-52.93)
5.22 ± 1.02 (3.55-7.29)
25.14 ± 6.50 (15.12-33.75)
1.43 ± .19 (1.19-1.92)
0.85 ± .12 (.63 -1.12)
1.09 ± .13 (.94-1.43)
1.06 ± .15 (.90-1.36)
1.23 ± .16 (1.09-1.68)
573.11 ± 110.84 (403.50-793.50)
10.70 ± 2.79 (5.90-16.39)
42.19 ± 8.49 (31.06-57.15)
5.46 ± 1.06 (3.72-7.15)
26.02 ± 5.17 (19.49-34.39)
Abbreviations: BMC, bone mineral content (g); BMD, bone mineral density (g/cm2).
variables. Prior to participation, each participant received an explanation of all risks, benefits, and
procedures and signed a consent form approved by
Wichita State University and Via Christi Regional
Medical Center Institutional Review Boards.
Instrumentation and Procedures
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther • Volume 36 • Number 11 • November 2006
839
REPORT
FIGURE 1. Hip scan positioning for dual-energy X-ray
absorptiometry (DEXA) analysis (using plastic apparatus for proper
hip positioning).
RESEARCH
The height and body mass of each participant were
measured. The BMC and BMD were measured per
standard protocol using a Hologic QDR 4500 Elite
series DEXA Bone Densiometer (Bedford, MA).
DEXA has been shown to be a very reliable (r = 0.99)
and precise (coefficient of variation less than 1%)
method for assessing body composition, as well as
total body, spine, and femur BMD.23,24 The Hologic
QDR series has also been shown to demonstrate in
vitro accuracy of greater than 96% at the hip for the
1000 series in a multicenter study.17 Specific hip
location reliabilities are within 1.3% at the femoral
neck and 0.6% for the trochanter,21 2.2% at the neck
and 1.1% at the trochanter,5 and 1.16% for the
trochanter and 1.66% for the femoral neck.37 Quality
control (QC) calibrations were conducted before
each scan using a Hologic spine phantom, and values
were verified to be within ±1 standard deviation from
the reference mean as determined by Hologic for the
unit.
Participants were positioned in the supine position
on the scanning table where they received instructions to remain motionless during the procedure
(Figure 1). The entire body was placed in the scan
field as determined by the outline of the table. The
entire body scan required the subject to be lined up
symmetrically in the measurement field while in the
supine position. The length and width of the entire
body scan were approximately 193 and 69 cm, respectively. The length and width of the scan for each hip
was approximately 15 and 11 cm, respectively. Separate scans of the entire body and bilateral hips were
performed. The time to complete each hip scan was
approximately 1 minute and for the entire body scan
approximately 7 minutes. All testing, completed by
the principal investigator, depended on each partici-
pant’s time and travel availability to undergo testing.
Each participant was tested only once.
The hips were scanned individually. Each hip was
lined-up according to protocol and was held in a
slightly internally rotated position with a triangularshaped plastic apparatus, according to the manufacturer’s instruction manual recommendations. The
plastic apparatus strapped to each lower extremity
allowed the hip to be optimally positioned for accurate assessment.
BMD (calculated in grams per centimeter squared)
and BMC (calculated in grams) were determined
using the manufacturer’s software. The lower extremities were sectioned for analysis via the manufacturer’s
recommended protocol. The specific anatomical regions of the hip that were measured were femoral
neck, trochanteric region, intertrochanteric region,
and entire hip (Figure 2). Measurements and analyses
were performed by the principal investigator, who was
not blinded to extremity involvement. Training in the
specifics of manufacturer’s recommended protocol
was implemented prior to initiation of the study. This
investigator also had 13 years of clinical orthopedic
strated that the involved hip BMD was lower than the
noninvolved hip BMD at the trochanteric (6.6%
difference, P⬍.001) and intertrochanteric (3.4% difference, P = .004) locations, as well as for the entire
hip (4.0% difference, P⬍.001) (Table 3). No significant differences in BMC were found for any locations
or entire lower extremity measures (BMD or BMC).
Femoral neck
Ward’s
triangle
Trochanter
DISCUSSION
Inter-trochanter
Total hip
FIGURE 2. Specific locations included in hip analysis. Reprinted
with permission from Hologic Inc (Bedford, MA).
physical therapy experience with knowledge of anatomical landmarks used for the protocol.
Data Analysis
Means and standard deviations were determined
for all dependent variables. Paired sample t tests were
used to determine differences of the dependent
variables between the involved and noninvolved lower
extremities. The alpha level was set a priori at .05 for
all statistical analyses. However, a Bonferroni adjustment was utilized as a correction for the use of
multiple t tests. This correction factor (0.05/5) reduced the alpha level to .01. The statistical software
package SPSS Version 11.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL) was
used for all analyses.
RESULTS
Based on the scan results, 1 participant was identified as osteopenic, and all data for that subject were
removed prior to analysis (Appendix). Data are
presented on the remaining 14 participants (17 to 42
years of age) who completed the study. Means,
standard deviations, and ranges of the various BMD
and BMC measurements for both the entire lower
extremity and at the various hip sites are shown in
Table 2.
Statistical analysis of differences between the involved versus noninvolved lower extremities demon840
The hip is an area of high trabecular bone content
and is highly susceptible to osteoporosis and fractures.7,12 Sparse information exists regarding BMD
and BMC, specifically at the hip following ACL
reconstruction surgery. The purpose of this study was
to determine, via DEXA, the differences in BMD and
BMC in the involved versus noninvolved lower extremities following ACL reconstruction. Our principal
interest was the specific anatomical locations in the
hip area due to the lack of consistent findings in this
area and, more importantly, the overall lack of
investigation of these sites. The primary finding of
this study was that hip BMD was lower in the involved
versus noninvolved lower extremities in participants 6
to 32 months following ACL reconstruction. No
differences existed when comparing entire lower
extremity BMD and BMC measurements, as well as
with all BMC measurements in the hip region. It
should be noted that several of the site-specific
comparisons, as well as the entire hip comparison,
reached a P level below .05 but failed to reach the
Bonferroni-adjusted level of .01.
The differences observed at the various hip sites
are in agreement with Schmitz,27 who also found a
significant difference in the trochanteric region of
the involved hip following ACL reconstruction. Significant deficits were reported in BMD of 4.6% at the
trochanteric region of the involved hip versus the
noninvolved hip and a 1.1% difference at the
trochanteric region in a group of subjects that were
ACL-deficient without having undergone ACL reconstruction. Data from 2 groups of individuals were
examined; 1 group had not undergone surgical
reconstruction and the other group had undergone
surgical reconstruction. The first group consisted of
11 participants who had suffered unilateral ACL
injury an average of 8.5 years prior to the time of the
study. The ACL reconstruction group included 24
participants having undergone unilateral ACL reconstruction approximately 2.5 years prior to the study.
DEXA was used to assess BMD at 3 sites on the hip, 3
sites on the distal femur, 4 sites on the tibia, and a
lateral projection of the patella. In both groups, the
involved lower extremity was compared to the
noninvolved lower extremity. Significant lower BMD
at all locations was noted in both groups, except at
the anterior-posterior and lateral projections of the
proximal tibia. Interestingly, more BMD was lost from
the trochanteric hip region, medial femoral condyle,
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther • Volume 36 • Number 11 • November 2006
TABLE 3. Paired samples test differences (comparison of involved versus noninvolved lower extremities).
Mean
Bone mineral density (g/cm2)
Entire lower extremity
Trochanteric
Entire hip
Neck
Intertrochanteric
Bone mineral content (g)
Entire lower extremity
Trochanteric
Entire hip
Neck
Intertrochanteric
SD
% def
t
P
–0.013
–0.056
–0.043
–0.035
–0.042
0.068
0.043
0.034
0.054
0.044
0.9
6.6
4.0
3.3
3.4
–0.73
–4.82
–4.69
–2.46
–3.53
.476
⬍.001
⬍.001
.028
.004
–20.918
–0.816
–1.946
–0.246
–0.879
42.086
1.319
2.503
0.360
2.480
3.7
7.6
4.6
4.5
3.4
–1.86
–2.31
–2.91
–2.56
–1.33
.086
.038
.012
.024
.208
Abbreviations: % def, percent of deficit of involved to noninvolved.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther • Volume 36 • Number 11 • November 2006
841
REPORT
the hip), no significant differences were found for
entire lower extremity BMD and BMC measurements.
Results point to differences in the hip comparisons
with respect to lower extremity involvement. The
cross-sectional design of the study limits conclusions
regarding changes that occur in bone status following
surgery. It could be speculated that there already was
a difference in bone status between the 2 extremities
prior to injury due to lower extremity dominance.
However, it has previously been shown that there is
no difference in BMD between dominant and
nondominant lower extremities of uninjured
people.13 Furthermore, these results may understate
the actual loss of bone in the involved side because
others have found that BMD was also reduced in the
noninvolved lower extremity following surgery, possibly as a result of decreased weight-bearing activity.30,33
It should be noted that our study involved a mixture
of dominant and nondominant lower-extremity injured limbs.
Subjects selected in the current study had all been
rehabilitated with similar protocols by therapists who
had similar backgrounds and rehabilitation experience. Rehabilitation should take into account the fact
that significant BMD changes were discovered with
several different hip-site measurements. Calbet et al4
found a significant increase in BMC in the dominant
upper extremity of professional tennis players. While
this demonstrates activity-specific increases in BMC, it
is interesting to note that these changes were evidenced in an extremity that is predominantly nonweight bearing. In addition, it has been demonstrated
that external loading beyond that provided by normal
weight-bearing promotes BMC accretion.10 There is a
positive influence of exercise on bone status as
measured by ultrasound and DEXA, specifically at the
femoral neck.19 BMD is specifically influenced by the
type of mechanical loading.3 High skeletal impact
loading training has been suggested to optimize bone
health, specifically at the pelvis and proximal femur.3,10,19,33,34 Walking alone had a significant positive effect on BMD for the lumbar spine, but not on
RESEARCH
and lateral femoral condyle in the group undergoing
ACL reconstruction, compared to the group with
ACL injury alone.
The only other studies of patients post-ACL reconstruction that have specifically examined the hip for
BMD and BMC were Kannus et al14 and Karlsson et
al.15 Kannus et al14 studied only the femoral neck
and found a nonsignificant 0.4% reduction in BMD
of the involved lower extremity, as compared to the
noninvolved lower extremity. Karlsson et al15 measured the femoral neck, Ward’s triangle, and the
greater trochanter. A significant difference was found
only at the trochanters when comparing the 2 extremities for BMD.
Sievanen et al30 had the unique opportunity to
assess BMD prior to and after ACL reconstruction.
One-year postinjury, the participant’s specific anatomical location bone densities were still approximately 10% below baseline. An additional follow-up
performed 2 years after the injury indicated further
recovery, although the preinjury values had not been
reached.29
Kannus et al14 also noticed a positive correlation
between the rating scores to assess function of the
knee and BMD deficits at the distal aspect of the
femur, patella, and the proximal aspect of the tibia.
The authors concluded that the greater the BMD of
the involved knee, the better the functional scores of
the injured knee on these scales.22,35
In comparison, the present study considered multiple locations within the hip (4 each for BMD and
BMC), compared to 3 fields in the Schmitz27 study
and only 1 field in the Kannus et al14 study. The
multiple projections were assessed to obtain a more
accurate assessment of the hip bone mineral status.
Furthermore, the present study, unlike that of Karlsson et al,15 compared BMC measurements at all of
the hip sites as well as for the entire lower extremity.
Although significant differences in specific anatomical locations in and around the knee have been
widely reported (and in this study demonstrated at
the femur or calcaneus.25 The higher impact level of
activity may be necessary for promotion of bone
mineral accretion and minimizing bone mineral
losses following ACL reconstruction.
Although it has not been specifically determined in
the client post-ACL reconstruction, it has been shown
in patients with hemiplegia that bone mineral loss is
associated with length of immobilization.8 Therefore,
rehabilitation consisting of strengthening exercises
performed in a predominantly weight-bearing manner may be of benefit to bone mineral status. Because
weight bearing is considered a major stimulus for
bone formation,12,26 a lack of normal weight bearing
on the involved lower extremity may contribute to
decreased bone mineral status of the involved hip as
shown in this study. Rehabilitation specialists should
take this into consideration when planning the rehabilitation process. Modification of weight bearing
might prevent any deleterious effects on the bone
mineral status of the involved lower extremity.
Limitations of this study could include the fact that
measurements were limited to the hip. However, it
might also be argued that the use of hip measurements could be an important parameter. The association between the risk of fracture and low bone mass
is well established.7,28,32 Due to the hip being an area
of high trabecular bone content, it would stand to
reason that this risk of osteoporosis and osteoporotic
fractures would be much more prevalent in the hip
area compared to the knee in these individuals.
DEXA measurements, specifically at the femoral neck,
are one of the best and most cost-effective BMD
methods to screen for osteoporosis.18,24 Therefore, it
could be argued that hip bone mineral status should
be closely monitored, not only in persons post-ACL
reconstruction but anyone sustaining any significant
damage to the lower appendicular skeleton. Hip
BMD may be relevant for the aging patient post-ACL
reconstruction as well. It is also known that an
increase in the rate of mineral turnover is one of the
early responses of bone to trauma as several investigators have reported substantial reductions in bone
mass after fracture of long bones, not only at the site
of the fracture but also at adjacent sites proximal and
distal to it.2 Detecting bone turnover in the hip may
be an early indicator of future changes to come at
the knee following ACL reconstruction.
The fact that measurements were taken in subjects
of a wide range could be a limitation of this study. It
was not expected that any age-specific changes would
affect the results. The fact that side-to-side comparisons were made in all test subjects eliminates any
age-related changes.
Also, the timeframe from surgery to measurement
was variable (6 to 32 months). In a single-subject case
study, Sievanen et al30 reported that timeframe is a
significant consideration. This is in direct contradiction to evidence from previously mentioned stud842
ies9,14,16 which note that time differences between
surgery and measurement have little effect, thereby
providing an opportunity to increase sample size for
this study and improve the generalizability of results.
This was not expected to have a substantial influence
on the results due to previously mentioned crosssectional and longitudinal studies looking at much
longer timeframes than used in the present
study.9,14,16 Additionally, it has been shown that
length of time from injury to surgery did not
correlate with bone density loss.16
CONCLUSION
BMD differences in the hip region are significant
in patients who are postoperative ACL reconstruction.
Measurements at specific hip sites demonstrated
greater differences in bone mineral status than measurements of the entire lower extremity. The use of
weight-bearing activities to improve bone status for
patients post-ACL reconstruction is an area of study
that should undergo further testing.
REFERENCES
1. Andersson SM, Nilsson BE. Changes in bone mineral
content following ligamentous knee injuries. Med Sci
Sports. 1979;11:351-353.
2. Andersson SM, Nilsson BE. Changes in bone mineral
content following tibia shaft fractures. Clin Orthop Relat
Res. 1979;226-229.
3. Bemben DA, Buchanan TD, Bemben MG, Knehans AW.
Influence of type of mechanical loading, menstrual
status, and training season on bone density in young
women athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18:220-226.
4. Calbet JA, Moysi JS, Dorado C, Rodriguez LP. Bone
mineral content and density in professional tennis
players. Calcif Tissue Int. 1998;62:491-496.
5. Chilibeck P, Calder A, Sale DG, Webber C. Reproducibility of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Can Assoc
Radiol J. 1994;45:297-302.
6. Compston JE. Bone density: BMC, BMD, or corrected
BMD? Bone. 1995;16:5-7.
7. Deal CL. Osteoporosis: prevention, diagnosis, and management. Am J Med. 1997;102:35S-39S.
8. Demirbag D, Ozdemir F, Kokino S, Berkarda S. The
relationship between bone mineral density and immobilization duration in hemiplegic limbs. Ann Nucl Med.
2005;19:695-700.
9. Ejerhed L, Kartus J, Nilsen R, Nilsson U, Kullenberg R,
Karlsson J. The effect of anterior cruciate ligament
surgery on bone mineral in the calcaneus: a prospective
study with a 2-year follow-up evaluation. Arthroscopy.
2004;20:352-359.
10. Fehling PC, Alekel L, Clasey J, Rector A, Stillman RJ. A
comparison of bone mineral densities among female
athletes in impact loading and active loading sports.
Bone. 1995;17:205-210.
11. Granhed H, Jonson R, Hansson T. The loads on the
lumbar spine during extreme weight lifting. Spine.
1987;12:146-149.
12. Johnston CC, Slemenda C. Osteoporosis: an overview.
Phys Sports Med. 1987;15:65-68.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther • Volume 36 • Number 11 • November 2006
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
36.
37.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther • Volume 36 • Number 11 • November 2006
843
REPORT
35.
X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). Ann Chir Gynaecol.
1988;77:197-203.
Palombaro KM. Effects of walking-only interventions on
bone mineral density at various skeletal sites: a metaanalysis. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2005;28:102-107.
Pirnay F, Bodeux M, Crielaard JM, Franchimont P. Bone
mineral content and physical activity. Int J Sports Med.
1987;8:331-335.
Schmitz MA. Research links ACL injury to bone density
loss. Biomechanics. 2001;8:93-98.
Schoutens A, Laurent E, Poortmans JR. Effects of inactivity and exercise on bone. Sports Med. 1989;7:71-81.
Sievanen H, Heinonen A, Kannus P. Adaptation of bone
to altered loading environment: a biomechanical approach using X-ray absorptiometric data from the patella of a young woman. Bone. 1996;19:55-59.
Sievanen H, Kannus P, Heinonen A, Oja P, Vuori I.
Bone mineral density and muscle strength of lower
extremities after long-term strength training, subsequent
knee ligament injury and rehabilitation: a unique 2-year
follow-up of a 26-year-old female student. Bone.
1994;15:85-90.
Sievanen H, Oja P, Vuori I. Precision of dual-energy
x-ray absorptiometry in determining bone mineral density and content of various skeletal sites. J Nucl Med.
1992;33:1137-1142.
Sinaki M. Exercise and osteoporosis. Arch Phys Med
Rehabil. 1989;70:220-229.
Taaffe DR, Marcus R. The muscle strength and bone
density relationship in young women: dependence on
exercise status. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2004;44:98103.
Taaffe DR, Robinson TL, Snow CM, Marcus R. Highimpact exercise promotes bone gain in well-trained
female athletes. J Bone Miner Res. 1997;12:255-260.
Tegner Y, Lysholm J. Rating systems in the evaluation of
knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;4349.
Van der Wiel HE, Lips P, Nauta J, Patka P, Haarman HJ,
Teule GJ. Loss of bone in the proximal part of the femur
following unstable fractures of the leg. J Bone Joint Surg
Am. 1994;76:230-236.
White J, Harris SS, Dallal GE, Dawson-Hughes B.
Precision of single vs bilateral hip bone mineral density
scans. J Clin Densitom. 2003;6:159-162.
RESEARCH
13. Kannus P, Jarvinen M, Sievanen H, Jarvinen TA, Oja P,
Vuori I. Reduced bone mineral density in men with a
previous femur fracture. J Bone Miner Res.
1994;9:1729-1736.
14. Kannus P, Sievanen H, Jarvinen M, Heinonen A, Oja P,
Vuori I. A cruciate ligament injury produces considerable, permanent osteoporosis in the affected knee.
J Bone Miner Res. 1992;7:1429-1434.
15. Karlsson MK, Nilsson BE, Obrant KJ. Bone mineral loss
after lower extremity trauma. 62 cases followed for
15-38 years. Acta Orthop Scand. 1993;64:362-364.
16. Kartus J, Stener S, Nilsen R, Nilsson U, Eriksson BI,
Karlsson J. Bone mineral assessments in the calcaneus
after anterior cruciate ligament injury. An investigation
of 92 male patients before and two years after reconstruction or revision surgery. Scand J Med Sci Sports.
1998;8:449-455.
17. Khan KM, Henzell SL, Broderick C, et al. Instrument
performance in bone density testing at five Australian
centres. Aust N Z J Med. 1997;27:526-530.
18. Lafferty FW, Rowland DY. Correlations of dual-energy
X-ray
absorptiometry,
quantitative
computed
tomography, and single photon absorptiometry with
spinal and non-spinal fractures. Osteoporos Int.
1996;6:407-415.
19. Lehtonen-Veromaa M, Mottonen T, Nuotio I, Heinonen
OJ, Viikari J. Influence of physical activity on ultrasound
and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry bone measurements in peripubertal girls: a cross-sectional study.
Calcif Tissue Int. 2000;66:248-254.
20. Leppala J, Kannus P, Natri A, et al. Effect of anterior
cruciate ligament injury of the knee on bone mineral
density of the spine and affected lower extremity: a
prospective one-year follow-Up study. Calcif Tissue Int.
1999;64:357-363.
21. Lilley J, Walters BG, Heath DA, Drolc Z. In vivo and in
vitro precision for bone density measured by dualenergy X-ray absorption. Osteoporos Int. 1991;1:141146.
22. Lysholm J, Gillquist J. Evaluation of knee ligament
surgery results with special emphasis on use of a
scoring scale. Am J Sports Med. 1982;10:150-154.
23. Mazess RB. Bone densitometry of the axial skeleton.
Orthop Clin North Am. 1990;21:51-63.
24. Mazess RB, Barden HS. Measurement of bone by
dual-photon absorptiometry (DPA) and dual-energy
Appendix
Scan of Participant 15 Who Was Excluded From the Study Due to Osteopenia
844
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther • Volume 36 • Number 11 • November 2006